In humans it is known that benefits are associated with personal cleansing of teeth, and gums, after eating. For instance, brushing can remove acid containing plaque which promotes tooth decay and breath odor. However, brushing is often not possible and many people substitute chewing gum and the like. While chewing gum and the like does provide benefit, such does not neutralize teeth, and gum tissue degrading acids for a prolonged period. Even gums which contain alkaline materials, (ie. sodium bicarbonate), fail to beneficially increase the pH in an oral cavity for a prolonged period, as saliva flow dilutes and dissolves it and then it is quickly swallowed. Therefore present invention specifically does not teach use of chewing gum. It is noted that a neutral pH of 7.0, or at least a pH above about 6 is desirable where the goal is prevention of formation, or reduction in already formed existing plaque.
In animals, (eg. dogs and cats), the above recited approaches of cleaning teeth, (ie. brushing and gum chewing), are not usually convenient or even possible to practice, and approaches to controlling teeth cleanliness and preventing associated pet breath odor usually take the form of providing treated foods or mechanically abrasive chewing systems. Improved methodology of cleaning animal mouths to promote plaque removal and freshened breath thereof would provide utility.                A Search of Patents provided:        U.S. Pat. No. 6,309,676 to Lewandowski describes a Pet Breath Ameliorator involving coating the pets food with pure natural garlic.        U.S. Pat. No. 6,050,224 to Owens describes a Therapeutic Chew Device for Cleaning Teeth and Breath of Dogs. Said device comprises a plurality of polyester yarns with knots near opposite a rope made of rawhide impregnated with activated charcoal. The later component serves to freshen a dogs breath as it chews the device.        U.S. Pat. No. 5,405,836 to Richard et al. describes Pet Foods such as biscuits, which contain Water Soluable Zinc Compound Coating for Controlling Malodorous Breath.        U.S. Pat. No. 5,944,516 to Deshaies describes an Animal Tooth Cleaning Device and Method. The Device comprises a core element having a plurality of brushes extending therefrom which protrude as an animal chews it.        U.S. Pat. No. 6,014,950 to Rogers describes a rolled or folded Terry cloth Dog Teething Toy which can be saturated with water and frozen.        U.S. Pat. No. 5,249,570 to Cox describes an Equine/Canine Hemoglobin-Oxygen Training Mask.        Patents and Published Application to and by Hague which describe Bleached Expanded Pigskin and Products such as Animal Chews are:                    U.S. Pat. No. 6,827,041;            U.S. Pat. No. 6,886,497;            U.S. Pat. No. 7,013,838;            US2004/0118360; and            US2005/0071927.                        Patents which describe antiplaque compositions and the like are:        Patent No. H83 to Poletto et al. describes dental antiplaque agents and inhibitors of connective tissue disease.        U.S. Pat. No. 6,669,928 to Gurol describes a peridontal composition, which can be a glycerin-free stable gel or paste capable of withstanding high pH environments without degradation.        U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,159,315; 4,157,385; 4,156,715; 4,150,112 and 4,148,872 to Wagenknecht, deceased et al. describe plaque inhibiting composition and method in the form of chewing gum.        U.S. Pat. No. 6,610,276 to Melman describes multi-functional dental composition containing acetic acid for preventing dental plaque, including application to animal teeth.        U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,509,007 and 6,905,673 to Rajaiah et al. describe oral care kits and compositions containing polybutene.        U.S. Pat. No. 5,693,334 to Miskewitz describes chewing gum product comprising gum with encapsulated sodium bicarbonate, a peroxide compound, a bulk sweetener and a flavorant, with dental health benefits.        U.S. Pat. No. 5,455,024 to Winston et al. describes dentifrices containing zinc oxide particles and sodium bicarbonate.        U.S. Pat. No. 7,022,314 to Barabolak et al. describes anti-plaque emulsions comprising surfactant, emulsifier and triclosan, and products containing same.        U.S. Pat. No. 6,649,147 to Ye et al. describes a delivery system for oral care compositions comprising organosiloxane resins using a removable backing strip and methods of their use.        U.S. Pat. No. 6,997,708 to Allred et al. describes treatment compositions and strips having a solid adhesive layer and treatment gel adjacent thereto.        U.S. Pat. No. 4,225,579 to Kleinberg describes means and method for improving defenses against caries.        U.S. Pat. No. 5,993,786 to Chow et al. describes anti-carious chewing gums, gels, toothpastes and dentifrices.        U.S. Pat. No. 6,685,971 to Xu et al. describes a method and composition, which can contain an edible wax, for repairing and promoting regeneration of mucosal tissue in the gastrointestinal tract.        Published Application No. 2006/0088482 by Wulknitz et al. describes an oral and dental agent.        Published Application No. 2004/0101493 by Scott et al. describes chewable solid unit dosage forms and methods for delivery of active agents into occlusal surfaces of teeth. This Published Application also describes use of surfactants which decrease adherence of a composition to teeth and gums.        Published Application No. 2005/0008584 by Montgomery is disclosed as it was identified by the Examiner in prosecuting Parent application Ser. No. 11/505,167 and describes application of sodium percarbonate in an oral composition. Montgomery 584, it is focused on teeth whitening. While whiter teeth is a side effect of the present invention, that is not the focus thereof. The present invention has as a primary focus the reducing plaque on mammalian teeth.        U.S. Pat. No. 4,229,486 to U.S. Pat. No. 4,229,485 to Brown as it was identified by the Examiner in prosecuting Parent application Ser. No. 11/505,167.        Published Application No. 2004/0244720 by Jia is disclosed as it was identified by the Examiner in prosecuting Parent application Ser. No. 11/505,167.        Published Application No. 2005/0152851 by Kaminski is disclosed as it describes a stick of semi-hard dentifrice containing sodium bicarbonate as an abrasive. This Patent describes applying a sodium bicarbonate containing semi-hard dentifrice onto to teeth, then brushing it off. As opposed to the present invention, no suggestion that the sodium bicarbonate should remain in place for a prolonged period is disclosed. Rather, the sodium bicarbonate is described as being an abrasive to aid with successful brushing.        Published Application No. 2003/0124230 by Zielinski is disclosed as it mentions reducing bad breath.        U.S. Pat. No. 6,405,681 to Ward is disclosed as it describes an animal chew toy with a reservoir for containing liquid. Further, Ward 681 discloses a Chew Toy which can dispense a dentifrice when chewed by a dog, but it does not identify other dispensing approaches.        U.S. Pat. No. 4,151,517 to Wagenknecht, deceased et al. is disclosed as it was identified by the Examiner in prosecuting Parent application Ser. No. 11/505,167.        Published Application No. 2003/02069948 by Geregly et al. is disclosed as it was identified by the Examiner in prosecuting Parent application Ser. No. 12/380,972.        Also previously identified in Examination in a Parent Application, is Published Application No. 2003/0175326 by Thombre.        
It is also disclosed that Merial Inc. produces a product called “ORAVET” that comprises a polymer that is applied to pet teeth to prevent formation of plaque.
It is also known that prolonged application of sodium bicarbonate and the like to bacteria causes said bacteria to lyse, thereby rendering them unable to form plaque.
It is also known that various animals have teeth with characteristics that are genetically designed for various functions. For example, horses and cows have teeth suited for grinding whereas carniverous animals such as cats and dogs have teeth suited to ripping and tearing. An approach to inhibiting plaque formation which is applicable to all manner of teeth would therefore provide utility.
Next, please understand that what is new in the present invention is the forming of a composition of material with a pH preferably above about 7.0 that, in use, forms a barrier between teeth and gums, with respect to an oral environment, in a manner that maintains said material in contact with the teeth for a period of at least an hour. Strong acid is not involved at all!
Continuing, this CIP is filed in view of failed prior efforts in prosecution of the Parent application Ser. No. 12/380,972, in which the Examiner identified a Published Application by Lawlor, No. 2003/0103914 Published June 2003. It is believed that the Examiner's argument in that effort, to the effect that the Original Specification of the present Application did not support reciting “A method of reducing plaque on mammalian teeth that:                does not require mechanical abrasion . . . ”;was overcome in view of Page 13 of said Original 972 Specification Lines 25-32, which was very clear regarding:        the known practice of using sodium bicarbonate to abrasively remove plaque,but that what is not known is:        “intentionally maintaining the sodium bicarbonate in contact with teeth and gum, in a substantially undiluted form, for hours and longer, before optional removal”, (emphasis added).Note: Beeswax, or the like, provides said adherent properties.(Note, The Examiner in that prosecution withdrew the rejection based on Lawlor 914).        
The foregoing identified negative limitation applies in the present invention (regarding non-use of abrasion). Further, it continued, it was believed, to avoid previously cited Melman 276 and Kamiski 230 Patents thereby avoiding their reinstatement as a basis of rejection.
As regards Lawlor, it is noted that mention of “Beeswax” therein is limited to its use in chewing gum. In that light see Page 1, in the Original Specification of the Parent 972 Application, Lines 19-28 where it clearly states:                “While chewing gum and the like does provide benefit, such does not neutralize teeth degrading acids for a prolonged period. Even gums which contain alkaline materials, (ie. sodium bicarbonate), fail to beneficially increase the pH in an oral cavity for a prolonged period, as saliva flow dilutes and dissolves it and then it is swallowed”.As a result of this identified support provided thereby a negative limitation which excludes “chewing gum” is included in Claims in this present Application, and that avoids the teachings of Lawlor. Further Lawlor does not describe using wax as a barrier between teeth and/or gums, and an oral cavity environment, let alone a barrier containing material with a pH of 7.0 or greater.        
Further all Lawlor compositions are very different from the preferred present invention composition of material, which composition of material:                adheres to teeth, and gums, and serves as a barrier between teeth and gums, and the oral environment;        inhibits plaque from adhering to teeth; and        reduces and/or absorbs plaque on teeth when left in place for hours rather than minutes;said inhibitor of plaque causing said composition of matter to present with a pH at least above 6.0 and preferably above 7.0;and preferably comprises:        1/8 beeswax;        5/8 oil; and        2/8 plaque inhibiting material.Again, while Lawlor does describe the use of waxes, it does not remotely suggest using them as a barrier containing material with a pH of 7.0 or greater to maintain said material in contact with teeth for repeated periods of an hour or more!Nothing in Lawlor teaches how to modify the compositions described therein to arrive at that of the preferred present invention composition of matter. In fact, Lawlor describes so many different compositions,        all of which contain Citrus and/or Vitis, that it is difficult to understand how it provides any guidance to one skilled in the art as to which to even start with and then how to modify it to achieve the present invention composition of matter. Lawlor is in fact confusing as to what it is actually disclosing other than that it's compositions all contain Citrus and/or Vitis and that is really all that is new in Lawlor over prior art. In particular, nothing in Lawlor remotely suggests that any of its various compositions should not contain Citrus and/or Vitis acids, which the present invention specifically excludes as it seeks to neutralize acid and therefore would not add an acid to it's compositions. Again see Page 1, Lines 19-28 of the Parent 972 Application to support this, and such is definitely present in this CIP.        
Further, the recitation of the present invention composition of matter
forming a barrier between teeth and an oral environment
is found in the Original Parent 972 Application Specification Abstract and on Page 6 Line 29.
Continuing, nothing in Lawlor remotely suggests that any of the many compositions of matter suggested therein should ever be maintained in contact with teeth for a prolonged period of an hour or more. Lawlor is focused on seconds of time and in no case does it suggest anything beyond minutes. This is probably because, as mentioned, ALL said Lawlor compositions include Citrus and/or Vitis which have a pH far below 6.0, (eg. typically 2.0-4.0), which is acidic—and again, it is well known that any material with a pH of below about 6.5, and especially below 5.5, begins to dissolve tooth enamel, which effect can become significant if contact between a low pH material and said tooth enamel is maintained over a prolonged period of an hour or more. It is therefore absolutely inconceivable that one skilled in the art would read Lawlor and conclude it should be practiced for prolonged periods of time on the order of an hour or more. Again do note, nothing in Lawlor remotely suggests that Citrus and/or Vitis should be removed from its formulations. Adding a buffering agent, it might be argued, is disclosed in Lawlor and that could allow achieving a pH above 7.0. However, Lawlor is focused on destruction of bacteria, (Anti Bacterial seed), and buffering Citrus and/or Vitis acid inhibits that capability and thus the very thing that is new in Lawlor—that is, the bacteria killing effect of Citrus and/or Vitis acids, would be nullified. Even though buffering agents can in general be applied to achieve a pH in a range of about 3 up to 10, (which well known fact Lawlor does recite), any buffering Lawlor would suggest, in a practical sense, would not be used to achieve a pH above 7.0 as that would negate achieving the result desired in the Lawlor reference, said effect being that Citrus and/or Vitis kill bacteria which Lawlor says is the previously unreported basis of the invention disclosed therein. Specifically, in Paragraph (0013) in Lawlor it states that its anti-plaque action is based on its Citrus and/or Vitis (acid) extracts disrupting bacteria membranes, thereby making bacteria more susceptible to anti-plaque agents. This is not at all remotely the basis upon which the present invention works as it does not utilize acid in it's composition! It seeks to neutralize all acids!
In this light note that the present invention, again does not contain, or even suggest that Citrus and/or Vitis, or any other acid be present. Again, the present invention seeks to neutralize acid so any said neutralized acid will not have contact with teeth over the prolonged period called for in the present invention.
And note that on Page 1 of the Original 972 Specification, beginning in Line 25 it recites:                “It is noted that a neutral pH of 7.0, or at least a pH above about 6 is desirable where the goal is prevention of formation, or reduction in already formed existing plaque”.(Also note that plaque by nature produces an acid environment well below 5.5). That, again, distinguishes over Lawlor as, again, Lawlor does not suggest removal of Citrus and/or Vitis acid from its formulations. Lawlor could provide a buffered pH over 7.0, but that would inhibit the bacteria killing action of the Citrus and/or Vitis acid, which is the primary focus therein. One skilled in the art would simply not be led to increase pH in a Lawlor composition as that would decrease the effectiveness of the Lawlor invention. Continuing, a negative limitation could be added to the Claims that identifies Citrus and/or Vitis are specifically not present, but the Present Invention Original Specification does not specifically support such. Note, it is specifically stated here that the present invention does not comprise Citrus and/or Vitis. It simply was not thought to directly address the absence of Citrus and/or Vitis acid in the present invention composition when writing the Original Parent 972 Specification, as the present invention is not focused on killing bacteria with low pH compositions, but rather on controlling plaque formation with high pH values, such as provided by the Sodium or Potassium Bicarbonates. (Again see Original Specification Page 1, Lines 25-28 where it says such plaque control requires a pH above about 6.0). In general there are an infinite number of things that are not part of the present invention that are not mentioned in the Specification, as is always the case in Patent Applications.        
Further it is stated in the Original Parent 972 Specification that Sodium and/or Potassium Bicarbonate or the like are a part of the Composition of Matter—and such provides a basic pH of above 7.0. In that light, and in view of the fact that no acidic components were recited as required in the present invention Composition of Matter, it is believed that it should be sufficient to recite supported language to the effect that said inhibitor of plaque causes said composition of matter to present with a pH preferably above 6.0 to 7.0″, and thus distinguish over Lawlor. And again, this distinguishes over Lawlor as nothing in Lawlor suggests that the Citrus and/or Vitis should be removed from it's composition, or on a practical basis that buffering agents should be included in the Lawlor compositions to increase their pH above 6.0-7.0. One skilled the art having Lawlor before him or her would not be guided thereby to delete the Critic and/or Vitis acids or drastically increase pH in any of its many compositions, as that would defeat the purpose of the Lawlor Published Application purposes of provided low pH compositions that kill bacteria.
Attention is also directed to the FIGS. 1 and 2, and to Page 16 in the Original Parent 972 Specification in which it is stated that                “Note that FIG. 2 shows that plaque present on the dog's teeth in FIG. 1 is reduced.”        
The word “reduced”, as it refers to plaque refers to the point that:                as a result of the sodium and/or potassium bicarbonate inhibiting plaque from adhering to teeth; and        reduces and/or absorbs plaque when left in place for at least one hour;and in conjunction with the many other distinctions with respect to Lawlor, it is now believed that the Present Invention is clearly shown to be New, Novel and Non-Obvious in view of all known references. Again, nothing in Lawlor describes a plaque reducing composition be maintained as a barrier between teeth and gums, and an oral environment for at least an hour. It is also mentioned that the Examiner's point in the earlier prosecution, regarding “at least an hour” being covered by “at least 30 seconds” was well taken, and technically, without more, has some merit. However, as argued earlier herein, no-one skilled in the art would intentionally place a Citrus and/or Vitis containing composition in contact with tooth enamel for such prolonged periods, as it would attack and act to dissolve said tooth enamel. Lawlor even alludes to this in Paragraph (0019) thereof, wherein he indicates acids can damage teeth. But even in view of that adverse affect Lawlor does not teach excluding (Citrus and/or Vitis) acid from its compositions, as does the present invention. The present invention teaches that one should not include, and should neutralize acids that might be present. Quite the opposite of what Lawlor teaches. While the teachings of Lawlor might indicate a way to control plaque on teeth, it would occur on a very different basis than does the present invention teach, (perhaps more by preventing it's formation via killing bacteria than by reducing existing plaque). Again, the present invention does not include use of a Citrus and/or Vitis, (or any other), acid containing low pH (eg. below 6.0) composition, but rather provides a composition with a pH above at least 6.0 and preferably 7.0 or above, and it is in a material that adheres to teeth and serves as a barrier between teeth and gums, and the oral environment. Such a method involving formation of a barrier containing material with a pH of 6.0-7.0 or above, between teeth and an oral environment, which barrier stays in place for at least an hour, is not remotely taught or suggested in Lawlor. Rather Lawlor suggests something like “swishing” a low pH composition around in an oral cavity for time periods on the order of seconds or at most a few minutes. And again, if a low pH material were to repeatedly remain in contact with teeth for more than a few minutes, serious damage to teeth would eventually result. One skilled in the art would not be led to do so and Lawlor does not suggest it should be done.        
And for emphasis, again, nothing in Lawlor suggests removing Citrus and/or Vitis from any of its many compositions and nothing in Lawlor would lead one skilled in the art to arrive at a present invention composition which provides a composition with a pH of at least 6.0 and preferably above 7.0 and that adheres to teeth in a manner so as to repeatedly maintain said composition in contact with teeth for at least an hour or more. One skilled in the art would not be guided to remove the Citrus and/or Vitis acid from the Lawlor composition, hence, would not arrive at a present invention composition with having a pH above 7.0. Lawlor's teachings might lead one skilled in the art to buffer a Lawlor composition or otherwise keep acid levels low, but it is noted that negates the affects which are new and basic to the Lawlor invention! Lawlor compositions work by adversely affecting bacteria cell walls and making them more susceptible to anti-plaque agents. If a Lawlor composition were buffered to a pH of 7.0 or above it is believed a Citrate salt would form and the Lawlor effect would be completely lost.
It is also noted that while the present invention composition of matter does not require an acid component as does Lawlor, the original Specification does support a pH of 6.0. This might seem to be a contradiction, however, do realize that components, when present, can be weakly acidic, as compared to the strongly acidic Citrus and/or Vitis components in Lawlor. That is the reason a below 7.0 pH is recited.
And finally—to really drive home that fact that Lawlor could not possibly obviate the present invention—do note that the word “barrier” does not appear in Lawlor's Application anywhere. And, forming a barrier between teeth and gums, and an oral environment, which barrier keeps a material which does not require a strongly acidic pH material component, in contact with teeth over prolonged periods is a critical, and an absolutely distinguishing element of the present invention, over Lawlor!
Next, as it was also cited in prosecution of the Parent 972 Application, it is further believed that Melman 276 is not a particularly relevant reference compared to the present invention, as Melman 276 discloses the presence of acetic or citric acid in the formulation of its disclosed dental compositions and does not suggest excluding said components. It is noted that the present invention does not include acetic or citric acid in its composition of matter, and it is strongly emphasized that since the present invention requires that its composition of material remain in contact with mammalian teeth for a prolonged period, such as acetic or citric acid would not be at all desirable. This is because it would, over time, destroy the teeth because enamel dissolves at a PH of 5.5, which an acid would cause. In this light it is emphasized that nothing in Melman 247 would lead one skilled in the art to eliminate the acetic or citric acid and replace it with sodium or potassium bicarbonate. Those teachings are missing in Melman 247. It is also noted that Melman suggests using Hexametaphosphate in Paragraph (0016), (much like Melman 276 should be required to do to obviate present invention elements, but doesn't). It is noted that Hexametaphosphate chemical binds to Calcium and prevents natural recalcification of teeth. One skilled in the art would not know to avoid this based on Melman 276. The Examiner also, in effect, argued that the present invention limitation that the present invention composition of matter remain in place for a period of time, in a substantially undiluted form, which is sufficient to reduce plaque on the teeth thereof, is obviated by the consideration that some of the Melman paste would adhere to teeth. But again, Melman 276 provides for the presence of acetic or citric acid in the formulation of its disclosed dental compositions and does not suggest excluding said components. That being the case, one skilled in the art would not leave said acid containing composition in place for hours rather than minutes regardless of a technical interpretation of language.
Continuing, as the Claims herein are substantially Amended over the original Claims in the Parent 972 Application, it is believed the Examiner's specific 103 arguments in prosecution of Parent Applications are no longer applicable. However, under the Section 103 position of the Examiner in the prior Action, it is noted that the Examiner did identified various elements of the present invention which are variously distributed in many different references, and then argued that because the elements, in forms somehow similar to elements in the present invention exist, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to be able to find the somehow similar elements, while not electing other unnecessary elements in said identified prior art, then modify the selected elements and appropriately combine them to arrive at the present invention. This approach can be applied to any invention. Applicant, however, finds no instructions in any single reference that would guide one skilled in the art acting as a technician rather than an inventor to arrive at the present invention. Even in view of the KSR case, Graham v. John Deere is still good law, and under it there must be teachings in one reference that would guide one skilled in the art to arrive at the new invention, which, again, Applicant does not find in any cited single reference.
As regards Kaminiski 851, it is noted that the use of sodium bicarbonate therein is as an abrasive during brushing. This reference does not lead one skilled in the art to attempt to maintain sodium bicarbonate in contact with teeth and gums for a period of time, in a substantially undiluted form, which is sufficient to reduce formation of, and remove plaque on teeth and gums. Further, the present invention calls for a larger presence of sodium or potassium bicarbonate in a material provided to cause adherence to teeth in the present invention, (eg. beeswax), than would be suggested to one skilled in the art by Kaminiski 851. It must be appreciated that sodium bicarbonate has many characteristics and properties, but the present invention does not require use of it as an abrasive.
As regards the Publication Application by Zielinski 230, it is noted that there is no mention of sodium bicarbonate therein, making it of dubious value as a valid reference. This reference teaches a food product that is meant to detoxify the liver of dogs. Again, this reference seems to be a bit far afield from the use of the present invention and was apparently used by the Examiner only to show that bad breath in dogs can be treated. However, its approach to doing so has nothing to do with the present invention use of sodium or potassium bicarbonate in a material composition that adheres to teeth and gums. Importantly, note, Zielinski 230 teaches a systemic approach, and not a topical approach as does the present invention.
Ward 681 discloses a Chew Toy which can dispense a dentifrice when chewed by a dog, but it does not identify other dispensing approaches.
As regards Montgomery 584, it is focused on teeth whitening. While whiter teeth is a side effect of the present invention, that is not the focus thereof. The present invention has as a primary focus the reducing plaque on mammalian teeth.
The use of Thorpe 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) in previous prosecution of Parent Applications is felt to now be moot in view of the Amendments to Claims presented herein.
In the prior prosecution of the Parent 972 Application, the Examiner's attention was directed to Page 13, Lines 19-25, in the Parent 972 Application, where it states:                Further, while actually counter to the focus of present invention, said method can further comprise, after some relatively long time period, (eg. hours as opposed to minutes), after application of said material to teeth and/or gums, the step of removing said material applied to said teeth and/or by an approach that results in removal of plaque removed from teeth along therewith.to provide priority support for maintaining present invention composition of matter in contact with teeth for a prolonged period, (eg. hours rather than minutes).        
It is also noted that Published Application No. 2004/0101493 by Scott et al. describes chewable solid unit dosage forms and methods for delivery of active agents into occlusal surfaces of teeth. This Published Application also describes use of surfactants which decrease adherence of a composition to teeth and gums. The present invention does not use surfactants.
It is to be noted that the Present Invention involves forming a Barrier between teeth and oral cavity for hours, (in the plural), rather than minutes. The Claims in this CIP are now focused by addition of:                said method being distinguished by the forming of, and presence of said plaque preventing and/or reducing barrier containing composition between said teeth, and gums, and said oral environment for hours rather than minutes, and the absence of any requirement for the use of chewing gum or mechanical abrasion or surfactant.        
For support of the approach herein the Examiner is referred to in In re Woodruff, 919F.2nd 1575, 16 USPQ2d (Fed Cir. 1990), which provides a basis for avoiding prior art by showing said prior art teaches away from a Present Invention. Additionally, the Inventor has disclosed to me that she found it surprising to find significant concentrations of Sodium Bicarbonate present in the mouth of a subject 24 hours after application of the Present Invention composition to teeth and gums thereof. This was discovered when the Inventor had applied composition to her teeth and gums one day, and a day later noticed a “foaming” when brushing her teeth with water. Said “foaming” could only be explained by the remaining presence of composition. The inventor believes the composition had been stored in gum tissue as well as remained on teeth. It is noted that Surprising Results also are cited in re Woodruff as a method to avoid prior art!
It is to be appreciated that in this CIP chewing gum is specifically stated as not being required, but also citations that involve chewing gum, can not meet the “barrier” remaining in place criteria recited in the Pending Claims, as “chewing” gum causes removal of any barrier forming material via abrasion, (eg. by a “wiping” effect, (eg. during mastication)). Also the phrases, “does not involve chewing gum” and “does not require an acid component” are now supported in this CIP Specification.
It is also directly noted that in prior prosecution efforts, the Examiner identified an overlap between “at least two minutes” in Prior Art, and “hours rather than minutes” in the present Application Claims, thereby argues that such does not provide Novelty. Applicant believes that even in view of the overlap identified, the prior art does not suggest a Barrier that remains in place for “hours rather than minutes”. The prior art does not suggest a time period of over about an hour. See Scott 493 Paragraph 0065 for instance where no time over “about an hour” is suggested. There are no teachings that a Barrier should remain in place between teeth and an oral environment for hours rather than minutes. Scott 493 even refers to the barrier referred to therein as temporary. See Paragraph 0035 therein.
The Examiner is also requested to consider that Scott et al. 493 recites the use of “Surfactant” in its composition of matter. See Scott et al. Claim 1. The presence of a Surfactant acts to reduce surface tension so there is no expectation of a Barrier formed thereby on teeth remaining in place for hours.
The Examiner is respectfully requested to consider said combination of supported Claim Requirements in this CIP at this time. In that light it is acknowledged that while cited references Thombre US2003/0175326 does not make any mention of a “barrier”, both Scott et al. US2004/0101493 and Gergely et al. US2003/0206948 do use the word “barrier”, but not at all in the context of the Present Application.
It is also noted that Scott (Published Application 2004/0101493) specifies its components “By Weight”, whereas the Present Claims state “By Volume”. And, Gangly (Published Application 2003/0206948) involves use of “Chewing Tablets”.
In summary, it is believed that taken as a whole, the Claims as in this CIP are not remotely obviated by any cited single primary reference, and that no cited single primary reference provides one skilled in the art instructions as how to identify elements therein while rejecting other elements therein, and guides one skilled in the art to seek out other references and select specific elements therein, while rejecting other elements therein, and then modify the selected elements and combine them as now Claimed. Even in view of KSR, simply because elements in an invention are known in arguably somehow similar forms and distributed in a plurality of prior art references, does not render a specific combination thereof, and series of steps in a method, obvious.
A need remains for a system and method which would enable application of a material to teeth and gums, which material remains in contact with, and adheres to, said teeth and gums for a period long enough to neutralize acids in dental plaque biofilm, inhibit plaque from adhering to teeth and gums, encourage removal of dental plaque, and form a barrier between the teeth and gums and the oral environment, which barrier preferably remains in place for days if not intentionally removed.